Why Mormons Make Great FBI Recruits
atlasobscura.com
atlasobscura.com
For one, mormonism is a very conservative religion. From blacks voting to gays marrying, the church's stance is "morality peaked in the early 1800s, and everything since then has been backsliding". It is also a very America-centric religion, implicitly and explicitly teaching manifest destiny: that America's founding was ordained by god specifically to facilitate the church's "restoration" (mormonism maintains that it is the "original christianity" practiced by ancient hebrews, don't think about that too hard), that Columbus and the founding fathers were all moral paragons, divinely inspired to that end. It's very insular; you can scarcely go a sunday without some warning about Lastly, it is a religion with a very top-down command structure; "obeying your leaders, even if they're wrong, will bring blessings from god" is an explicit teaching.
So it should come as no surprise that Utah suffers from some of the highest rates of affinity fraud in the nation; mormonism is good at making hard workers who obey orders; it's not so great at producing independent thinkers or whistleblowers who'll hold their bosses accountable, nor who will think twice about maintaining the status quo. Those who do break that mold are unlikely to fit in with their mormon peers, assuming they don't just leave on their own (which about 2/3rds of then do).
Naturally, if you're running a federal agency with a questionable history, tasked with maintaining the state of the union, that's exactly what you're looking for: a rule follower and order obey-er, not some "free spirit" who could blow the lid off of whatever scheme you're cooking up that week.
The principles of US Constitution, and honesty, and doing what Jesus Christ actually taught, are really important doctrinally for the Church.
People are talking a lot about "neoliberalism", which is interesting to me; sometimes it seems like a reversal to the British definition of liberal, where in the US we typically say conservative to mean "less programs", but in some ways "more federated power".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-war_consensus
wait, what's conservatism??
Neoliberals in the US are now saying we can have a deregulated cake that is also able to make social guarantees. This is compelling to me, because it's clear that businesses have an overwhelming amount of influence in the US; if there's too much distance from their accountability, it's difficult to measure it. If it is also a business's responsibility to do shit right and make favorable agreements with the government and the US as a whole, maybe they're onto something.
The LDS church seems exceptionally "neoliberal", by some definitions. "Owned and operated", "disaster-recovery-by-default".
You're largely correct with regards to calling the church "neoliberal"; it is infatuated with deregulation (most $100 billion dollar corporations are). However, it's not particularly interested in "social guarantees". To put it in perspective, the church demands 10% of its members' income be tithed to it as admission to "the celestial kingdom" (super V.I.P. heaven); to assuage the fears of those who don't really have 10% to spare, the church tells them they can rely on "the bishop's storehouse", a fund for struggling members. However, in practice many members are unable to get the assistance they need; bishops are actually explicitly instructed to tell members to borrow from friends or family before approaching the church, despite the church's likewise explicit teaching that "if you have to choose between feeding your family and paying tithing, pay tithing".
Saw that when I lived there...
> it's not so great at producing independent thinkers or whistleblowers who'll hold their bosses accountable, nor who will think twice about maintaining the status quo.
As I understand it, this works out great for the NSA. Given the plurality of mormons that I've met who work there.
I'm very progressive, one wedge against me is the gay-hate (i'm not gay, but I empathize with the community), and hearing a high priest group leader bash Obama and Gays from the pulpit made me stay home long enough and become inactive, the CESLetter did the rest years later.
I'm no fan of Obama anymore (too centrist) however I've noticed as far as States go... Utah is odd. It's not "all" special interests (unless that interest is the church), there's a fair more left-friendly legislating for a bright-red state than some of the southern alternatives. I was amazed they passed medical marijuana.
There's also more support for the people (they just raised medicaid as an example.)
Maybe there's a bit more compassion than your normal evangelical, a tiny bit less hypocrisy. Though, I'm betting the less-hypocritical are the ones who are leaving in droves because once they see it's fake they can't be part of it. It's not about culture to them.
It also had the lowest support for Trump in 2016, it's really a peculiar state in terms of ... how they think and act.
> Naturally, if you're running a federal agency with a questionable history, tasked with maintaining the state of the union, that's exactly what you're looking for: a rule follower and order obey-er, not some "free spirit" who could blow the lid off of whatever scheme you're cooking up that week.
This is the meat of it. Mormons, esp the ones who go into the military are super strait / narrow types who were boy scouts, church leaders, and have been taking orders their entire life. Now they can speak fluent spanish, or french and have taking orders down to a science. You couldn't get a more perfect candidate if you used eugenics.
(We are also not authorized to change the His commandments, nor the eternal truths that families are part of His plan, and can last forever, though not by force.)
The things that make Mormons great FBI agents also can be a double-edged sword. The stronger the devotion to the Church, the greater leverage for blackmail; anything that could preclude one from a temple recommend (or, even more severely, result in excommunication) can be used against a follower - be the naughty deeds actual or fabricated. This is less effective against higher-ranking members in the church (bishops, let alone their superiors up to the Quorum and the President, are well-positioned to be able to brush scandals under the rug), but could be absolutely devastating to your average Sister or Elder who could suddenly find oneself shunned by one's community and even one's own family. If I were a spy trying to compromise a Mormon FBI agent, that's exactly where I'd start: get some dirt, threaten to send it to the agent's bishop or disseminate it throughout one's Ward, and get cooperation.
I'm a lifelong, devoted and imperfect member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who has had lessons to learn (and I trust/hope I have learned them and will keep learning); I'm not any kind of official rep. What I believe and understand to be doctrinally at the core of things, is that all but One have sinned (we are imperfect people in an imperfect world), which makes us unclean, and no unclean thing can dwell with God, who knows everything and has made a way for us to become clean, having learned some things. If we confess our sins (appropriately), and forsake them (meaning change, even if it takes a lifelong effort, keep trying always to improve and honestly go forward), then we are forgiven. Everyone over, say, 8, can understand enough of that.
We can't deceive God. But we can be clean and forgiven, because Jesus Christ himself paid the price of our sins, if we choose to follow Him. And, honesty before an all-knowing God is more important than saving our lives, because we know life continues beyond mortality, and this knowledge is personal -- for me, it doesn't depend on what someone else said or might say, because I have learned it (enough for some decisions) for myself, not due to pressure or whatever. There are dear family members who have disaffiliated with the Church, openly, and we love them and they are always included in our lives, certainly not shunned! (That would be bad -- they are our family and we would be deeply sad otherwise -- similarly for many others, neighbors etc.) Freely making choices per one's honest conscience, in the absence of compulsion, is very central. And God will be the judge, not rumors or such, so what He thinks is vastly more important to me than what "people" think (though I should try not to make false impressions on "people", too).
I think it is hard to blackmail someone who truly believes this. Jesus said (as I recall): ~ "...ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." And many other relevant things. (More on my personal views, linked from my profile. But I'm just me.)
Individuals in any large group will have a variety of political or other opinions. Edit: and human flaws. Ultimately, we should love everyone (also a commandment), but in the final end, we don't answer to "people", and trust is ... earned by behavior over time (IMO).
There are numerous former Mormons who have had the precise opposite experience. Doesn't take much time on, say, the "exmormon" subreddit to see the vast array of accounts of families ceasing communication. Yes, not all families will cut out their apostate members (some, like mine, have been approximately accepting of it - though to most of my Mormon family and friends I'm still pretty ambiguous around my apostasy, lol), but it's still a risk, and that risk can be leverage. Our faith - at least as portrayed by the Church - is one of conformity, and of social pressure to ensure that conformity.
> And God will be the judge, not rumors or such, so what He thinks is vastly more important to me than what "people" think (though I should try not to make false impressions on "people", too).
Sure, and that's fine and dandy until those rumors make it to your bishop and he takes you as dishonest during your next interview.
And this assumes that the evidence is indeed fabricated. Give me a room full of Mormons and I'll give you a room full of closeted smokers, alcoholics, porn watchers, sexual "deviants", and - worst of all! - coffee drinkers. These people are "closeted" for good reason; if your argument around confession and forgiveness held water, they would have already confessed these things, and accordingly wouldn't be very "closeted" anymore, now would they?
Humans are, well, human. Even ones that sincerely believe there to be a paradisical afterlife (and/or decreasingly-paradisical afterlives, as the case may be) waiting for them.
That sounds sad.
I have found (the easy way and the hard way) that God is just and merciful, and expects us to be kind & honest, and trust the final judgement to Him.
I'm under the strong impression that our local and general leaders, or maybe about everyone else too, are aware of the things you talk about, that there is less deception than some might think, and really, the goal is to help, not condemn. Many things are structured with that help being available, if someone wants it. Even the online resources anyone can find, are extensive, and my own site links to many. Someone said, if you can't smell cigarette smoke at church meetings, we aren't doing our job. Some I know are open about their struggles (and/or opinions), and we can and should love them for the good that is in them.
Being wrongly judgemental or harsh is a sin too, I suppose a common one, and we are to love the sinner and help them if we can (and they want).
Seems like none of the wards of which I've been a member have been doing their jobs, then.
> I'm under the strong impression that our local and general leaders, or maybe about everyone else too, are aware of the things you talk about, that there is less deception than some might think, and really, the goal is to help, not condemn.
That's nice. It's the precise opposite of what most ex-Mormons seem to have experienced, however. It's certainly the precise opposite of what various homosexual and transgender members have experienced, being pressured to suppress fundamental aspects of who they are for the sake of conformity, in turn driving quite a few to suicide.
We indeed can and should love all of our fellow God's children for the good that is in them. That does, however, entail accepting God's creations as they are, rather than insisting that they conform to some arbitrary standards set by scripture written and interpreted by the hands of those very same imperfect creations. To "help" someone deny one's own identity to oneself and to God is just as egregious of a sin as any other sort of harm one could inflict on another. If you do agree with that notion - that accepting who you are ain't a sin, and that coercing others to reject who they are is a sin - then you're in the wrong church, friend; I have a feeling you'll be following in my footsteps sooner rather than later.
But that's a bit beside the topic, the point of which being that relatively few wards operate in the way you describe - and that the way said wards do operate makes Mormonism a potential avenue for exploitation.
What we all really are (children of God) is an important question, as is what He thinks about us as individuals. I don't think I can put it better than this (and many related resources for anyone who wants):
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=family+proclamation+site%3Achurcho...
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?lang=eng&query=ga...
It is also an important question whether the apostles really unitedly speak for God, and if the scriptures are true, if the Book of Mormon is what it says it is. I have determined, for myself, that the answer is (gratefully) yes, and written much more about that elsewhere. I also believe that anyone who wants can determine that for themselves, also; and we all will decide for ourselves.
It is great to live where we can speak our views clearly, regardless of whether they all agree, or which side of a question we favor.
I suppose if one loves anything more than truth, goodness, and the other things that lead to long-term joy (extending far beyond this mortality), rather than to regrets, that (which I see as a) misprioritization will always be an avenue for exploitation. Life is, in part, a chance to gain experience and learn, and make choices, in many situations, some very hard. Temptation and a imperfect world and the need we all have, to school, train, and bridle our own thoughts, desires, and habits, toward good things, provide many of those hard situations.
pps: I have lived in and visited a variety of places, and I read a lot. The Church is the best influence in my life, helping me and others I know, in some very hard times. A lot there.
Witnesses are straightforward: blackmail multiple members, or get some plants who are "new to the ward". Might take awhile to build up a ward-wide infiltration network, but it's likely worth it.
Hell, we're talking about the same demographic that routinely falls for MLM schemes like dōTerra. Once you get a bit of a nucleus, a ward's espionage machine can very well be self-maintaining and decentralized, using peer pressure and some judicious application of scripture to guilt-trip people into being informants.
As for evidence: that's the whole discussion here :)
> There is also (to us) scripture that says Church discipline can only deprive one of membership
Which is all that's really needed to be effective leverage.
Edit: Which doesn't make it easy or less real -- but knowing it really helps me.
Sam Young has dug up plenty of dirt and horror stories on church youth interviews. Joseph Bishop was raping girls in the MTC, etc... those came out organically without the FBI's involvement.
If anything the church tries very hard to hide any scandals of members because it doesn't just make the member look bad it makes the church look bad... Because they have an image of being "REAL" prophets, seers, revelators who TALK face to face with Jesus. If they don't have the power of "discernment" then the whole church is a fabrication. (Hint: it is. See: CESLetter.org if in doubt).
Not really? If someone tried to blackmail me by threatening to tell the world that I drink alcohol, watch porn, and have kinky sex I'd say... "you don't get out much, do you?" The pious don't have this leeway.
Grandparent: 5 is greater than 2.
Parent: But aren't they both numbers?
It would seem the FBI is hiring a bunch of nancy boys.
Sounds like a no-brainer indeed.
Selecting choosing and preferentially supporting people based on their faith tradition, as a proxy for individual merit, has its negatives.
For example, the "tangle of religion and work at the Los Angeles bureau", when the FBI bureau is supposed to be a secular workplace.
For another example, blacks were a sort of second-class citizen in the LDS Church until 1978; unable to join the priesthood the same way non-blacks could. Even now, black members are relatively uncommon in the US compared to the national demographics. And women may not be ordained priests in the LDS Church.
As the article mentions, "most people working for the FBI are white men." Preferential recruiting for Mormons, if not done with brains, has the secondary effect of reduced recruiting for blacks.
Preferential support for Mormons, after all, is what lead the judge to determine the FBI "made personnel decisions which favored members of their church at the expense of Hispanic class members".
Perhaps one of the unsaid factors is that Mormons are more willing to work in an organization like the FBI with a white, male-dominated hierarchical power structure, without rocking the boat? A.K.A "good cultural fit"?
the problem is they are quite simply disconnected from reality, and all the culture they subscribe to only re-enforces that disconnection. They see themselves as being in a world but not of it. the gentle well meaning and polite arrogance is astounding to be immersed in.
I would be second guessing everything they say and report back on.
This is true of pretty much any faith group (Baptist, myself).
So, what is the remedy? Progressivism itself functions as a quasi-faith, but I'm just not singing those hymns.
One remedy could be to omit these metaphysical questions from hiring choices. Various people hold texts sacred that I do not. If the Bill of Rights means anything, I have to respect the Book of Mormon as much as the Koran.
Maybe for Abrahamic/Christian faith groups. Definitely not true for many others like Buddhists, Sikhs, etc.
There's a pretty stark difference between Sikhism and Christianity, for example. Christians believe everyone who is non-Christian is going to hell for eternal damnation. Sikhs believe that everyone is actually just worshiping the same god by different names, and that it doesn't matter what you worship, just that you're not an evil person.
Edit: My faith says: "Keep all the good that you have, and let us see if we can add to it."
Whether or not the Almighty cares for such stylings remains to be seen.
I don't believe in Jesus, so I'm going to hell -- right?
Have modern Christians just thrown this belief out? Can they still be called Christians if they do so? It seems like a core belief of the religion.
Jesus clearly asserts that all pass by Him, but what you do with that information is between you and Him.
That's about as heavy as I get.
No, you can have whatever beliefs you want. But Christianity's beliefs are codified in the bible, and you seem to disagree with what the bible says.
In my mind, you're not really a Christian, but obviously in your mind you can be whatever you want.
> John 1:9-1:11
> Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.
This is in the bible. According to Jesus, you should not greet me and by doing so you have taken part in my wicked works.
> Revelations 21:8
> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.
This part of the bible says that since I am faithless, I am as bad as a murderer or rapist, and I belong in lakes of fire and sulfur.
You clearly denounce these parts of the scripture. How can you call yourself Christian and still disagree with these core beliefs of Christianity?
> In my mind, you're not really a Christian, but obviously in your mind you can be whatever you want.
[Curtsy goes here]
> You clearly denounce these parts of the scripture. How can you call yourself Christian and still disagree with these core beliefs of Christianity?
I suppose that I'm supposed to go all Newton's 3rd Law in response to your troll. Is that what you require?
You're telling me that "universalism" is compatible with Christianty yet the bible says following any other faith or belief is a great sin. I don't think these two can logically coexist. And I guess you have no explanation for that.
Cognitive dissonance is the only explanation, I guess.
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe that all our choices have consequences, based on what we know/understand. All will eventually know about Jesus Christ (in this life or the next), enough to choose whether to accept His payment for their sins (by following Him), or suffer the consequences of those sins, personally. Sometimes that is called damnation, but He is merciful if we really try to do what we know is right, and everyone will get a chance.
I suppose that the best heaven wouldn't be so great if it requires being around those who, knowing the truth, still want to lie and hurt others, right? (My thinking, anyway.) Seems like those should all be ... together somehow. Hopefully they can learn better eventually.
The scriptures say we will get what we are willing to receive, that God knows all, cannot lie, and has a Plan which allows for both justice and mercy, for all His children, which we humans all are.
Edit: He also says not to procrastinate our repentance (the changes we make to our lives when we follow Him). I can attest that He helps make life better in many ways, and more bearable in the hard times we can all have.
"Stipulate for argument's sake that I am incorrect, and Jesus is not the meaning of life, here and hereafter. Fine. What then is?
What complete existential theory would you assert? What is the operating system of the universe in general, and my soul in particular?
What is absolutely True? How can I judge that which is moral when the concept of truth has been scuttled?
Is there anything else which you can objectively offer beside raw, carnivorous will-to-power?"
If we're not fanatics, then, as an intellectual matter (irrespective of metaphysical faith), we should be serious about trading up, no?
No, I did not say universalism is "compatible", merely that it is commonplace.
Cognitive dissonance is not the only explanation.
Another explanation might be that you're giving me the motte-and-bailey business: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
(Paul talks about baptism for the dead, but we don't believe anything is forced on them, and yes that the Lord is both just and merciful.)